The Democrat's "Religious Right"

Over at my fellow bloggers Joe.My.God and WickedGayBlog, there is an incessant harping on the Republican Party, and not a little antagonism towards those of us who would be gay and remain Republicans because of the Religious Right within our ranks. However, today's column by Wayne Besen ("Truth Wins Out" - www.waynebesen.com), who has impeccable credentials in the public fight against the Dobsons and "ex-Gay Movements" of the world, tells of the same problem at the higher echelons of the Democratic Party. I include parts of his article below:

Obama's Parent In The Pulpit Complex

"George W. Bush longed to escape his daddy's shadow, while Barack Obama has turned to shadowy preachers in his long search for a father figure. His filial approach to faith began with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and has now taken a sharp turn right.

The New York Times reports that the president has surrounded himself with a cadre of clerical crackpots known as the "Circle of Five." These holy men are: Rev. Joel Hunter, former head of the Christian Coalition; anti-gay Bishop T.D. Jakes; the ex-gay loving Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell; and Jim "waffling" Wallis, a protean progressive. The only Obama shaman who isn't shameless is the civil rights era preacher Rev. Otis Moss Jr.

Rev. Jakes refers to homosexuality as "brokenness" and has claimed that he wouldn't hire a sexually active gay person. But it seems T.D. can't even keep his own son off the D.L. (down low). His "sexually broken" heir was arrested earlier this year for cruising a Dallas Park in search of gay men.

Wallis, the chief executive of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, holds "traditional" views on homosexuality and abortion, according to the Times article. Although Wallis has taken some affirmative steps on GLBT equality, he prides himself on not being a part of "the religious left."

Rev. Caldwell has endorsed Metanoia, an ex-gay ministry designed to "help homosexuals understand with God's help that 'change [is] possible." When the GLBT community worked to elect Obama, this is not what we thought he meant when he promised "change."

"Whoa, OK, so let's assume [the Obama Administration decides to release] a mealy mouthed message like 'the President does not believe in ex-gay therapy' or some such nonsense," wrote blogger Pam Spaulding. "If he doesn't, then what is he doing talking to Caldwell when there are plenty of other prominent pastors he could choose to break bread with who don't subscribe to that view?"

We must also remember that during his campaign, Obama tapped "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to croon at a concert tour in South Carolina. And, this insult was compounded by the injury of selecting Rev. Rick Warren to give the Inauguration invocation.

I can live with Obama's poor Sunday choices if on Monday he hears our voices and passes landmark gay civil rights legislation. Still, it is disconcerting that such a cool and rational leader keeps returning to the theological armpit to fill his pulpit. Will spending time in the biblical backwater influence Obama's views and lead him to sell us down the river?

By embracing these conservative clerics, Obama is also setting a wretched example overseas. Last month, the State Department released a report to Congress that documents "an unfortunate crisis in human rights abuse directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people worldwide." Much of this violence was the result of brutal religious oppression. Yet, Obama pals around with reprehensible reverends, thus undermining his own administration's call for moderate religious leadership abroad.

...[W]e expect Obama to understand that his clerical choices do matter. It is time Obama stops searching for Daddy and becomes the man of the (White) house, by picking preachers who are not at irreconcilable odds with his human rights policies.



© 2008 Wayne Besen. All rights reserved.
Anything But Straight | www.waynebesen.com

AIG - So what else is new?

On March 9, after the Obama administration announced it would increase the US Taxpayer subsidy of AIG to 80% by pumping in another 30 billion, I wrote in this blog:

"...With all this cash, could AIG actually lose money? Well, friends, they just reported quarterly losses of 61 billion...The appropriate action is to allow AIG to fail, and distribute their clients to well-run companies. There are plenty of healthy, responsible Insurance companies who could and would benefit from taking on AIG's clients..."

Bush and Obama have both been shovelling dollars to AIG. Why? So they could be stabilized in the face of 61 billion losses per quarter? In spite of their best intentions, neither Bush nor Obama "get it." Government intrusion into the Marketplace always creates inefficiencies, always burdens the taxpayer and consumer, and always carries unintended consequences. This time, those consequences were highly visible: Millions of dollars in "bonuses" that were 'contractually mandated.'

Of course, if AIG was allowed to go bankrupt, as I have suggested multiple times before, those contracts would have been voided...and we wouldnt have the mess we have today. But far be it for Obama to listen to an Economist like me....

End Prohibition, End Drug Wars, Reduce Crime...

Reprinted from the March 7-13th edition of The Economist:

A HUNDRED years ago a group of foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first-ever international effort to ban trade in a narcotic drug. On February 26th 1909 they agreed to set up the International Opium Commission—just a few decades after Britain had fought a war with China to assert its right to peddle the stuff. Many other bans of mood-altering drugs have followed. In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a “drug-free world” and to “eliminating or significantly reducing” the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.

That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.

Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.

“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.

The Evidence of Failure

Nowadays the UN Office on Drugs and Crime no longer talks about a drug-free world. Its boast is that the drug market has “stabilised”, meaning that more than 200m people, or almost 5% of the world’s adult population, still take illegal drugs—roughly the same proportion as a decade ago. (Like most purported drug facts, this one is just an educated guess: evidential rigour is another casualty of illegality.) The production of cocaine and opium is probably about the same as it was a decade ago; that of cannabis is higher. Consumption of cocaine has declined gradually in the United States from its peak in the early 1980s, but the path is uneven (it remains higher than in the mid-1990s), and it is rising in many places, including Europe.

This is not for want of effort. The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5m of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. In Mexico more than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since December 2006 (and the annual overall death toll is running at over 6,000). This week yet another leader of a troubled drug-ridden country—Guinea Bissau—was assassinated.

Yet prohibition itself vitiates the efforts of the drug warriors. The price of an illegal substance is determined more by the cost of distribution than of production. Take cocaine: the mark-up between coca field and consumer is more than a hundredfold. Even if dumping weedkiller on the crops of peasant farmers quadruples the local price of coca leaves, this tends to have little impact on the street price, which is set mainly by the risk of getting cocaine into Europe or the United States.

Nowadays the drug warriors claim to seize close to half of all the cocaine that is produced. The street price in the United States does seem to have risen, and the purity seems to have fallen, over the past year. But it is not clear that drug demand drops when prices rise. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that the drug business quickly adapts to market disruption. At best, effective repression merely forces it to shift production sites. Thus opium has moved from Turkey and Thailand to Myanmar and southern Afghanistan, where it undermines the West’s efforts to defeat the Taliban.

Al Capone, but on a global scale

Indeed, far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before. According to the UN’s perhaps inflated estimate, the illegal drug industry is worth some $320 billion a year. In the West it makes criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens (the current American president could easily have ended up in prison for his youthful experiments with “blow”). It also makes drugs more dangerous: addicts buy heavily adulterated cocaine and heroin; many use dirty needles to inject themselves, spreading HIV; the wretches who succumb to “crack” or “meth” are outside the law, with only their pushers to “treat” them. But it is countries in the emerging world that pay most of the price. Even a relatively developed democracy such as Mexico now finds itself in a life-or-death struggle against gangsters. American officials, including a former drug tsar, have publicly worried about having a “narco state” as their neighbour.

The failure of the drug war has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and “harm reduction” (such as encouraging addicts to use clean needles). This approach would put more emphasis on public education and the treatment of addicts, and less on the harassment of peasants who grow coca and the punishment of consumers of “soft” drugs for personal use. That would be a step in the right direction. But it is unlikely to be adequately funded, and it does nothing to take organised crime out of the picture.

Legalisation would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated. Governments would tax and regulate the drug trade, and use the funds raised (and the billions saved on law-enforcement) to educate the public about the risks of drug-taking and to treat addiction. The sale of drugs to minors should remain banned. Different drugs would command different levels of taxation and regulation. This system would be fiddly and imperfect, requiring constant monitoring and hard-to-measure trade-offs. Post-tax prices should be set at a level that would strike a balance between damping down use on the one hand, and discouraging a black market and the desperate acts of theft and prostitution to which addicts now resort to feed their habits.

Selling even this flawed system to people in producer countries, where organised crime is the central political issue, is fairly easy. The tough part comes in the consumer countries, where addiction is the main political battle. Plenty of American parents might accept that legalisation would be the right answer for the people of Latin America, Asia and Africa; they might even see its usefulness in the fight against terrorism. But their immediate fear would be for their own children.

That fear is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise.

There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state’s job to stop them from doing so.

What about addiction? That is partly covered by this first argument, as the harm involved is primarily visited upon the user. But addiction can also inflict misery on the families and especially the children of any addict, and involves wider social costs. That is why discouraging and treating addiction should be the priority for drug policy. Hence the second argument: legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly.

By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalisation might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts—a way of making legalisation more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope.

A calculated gamble, or another century of failure?

This newspaper first argued for legalisation 20 years ago (see article). Reviewing the evidence again (see article), prohibition seems even more harmful, especially for the poor and weak of the world. Legalisation would not drive gangsters completely out of drugs; as with alcohol and cigarettes, there would be taxes to avoid and rules to subvert. Nor would it automatically cure failed states like Afghanistan. Our solution is a messy one; but a century of manifest failure argues for trying it.

Cheshire Co., New Hampshire Republicans offer opinions on the GOP's direction

This afternoon, Republicans in Cheshire County, NH were invited to an open meeting in Keene to voice their opinions about the future of the Republican Party. To be sure, there were many opinions.

Jennifer Horn, last year's unsuccessful candidate for Congress, served as the MC. Those who attended were quickly divided into groups to discuss issues such as voter outreach, party logistics, ranking issues by importance, media relations, etc. Oddly, attendees were not invited to join the work sessions of their choice, but were assigned topics haphazardly depending on their seats. Your truly, of course, defied the established order and participated in two groups: Voter Outreach and Issues. At the end of the hour or so meeting, summations were offered, and some short general discussion ensued.

The results were mixed, I think. Some members clearly understood the need to be technologicaly adept. Others were stuck in the 1950s, believing that phone trees were important, and that telling College students that Republicans supported Civil Rights in the 60s (over 40 years ago!) would somehow win them over...

I spoke up, of course. I believe that the Republican Party needs to do some real soul-searching. Unfortunately, the Elephants appear to be terrified of The Elephant in the Room: the stranglehold on the party by Religious Conservatives.

In spite of Jennifer Horn's stated belief that the GOP does not need to rebrand itself, she is terribly, terribly wrong.

An entire generation of new voters came to the polls believing that the Bush administration and Rush Limbaugh represent Republican ideals. Republicans spent eight years defending sickening deficits, exploding budgets, and “big-government” programs that they would have railed against had they been proposed by a Democratic Administration. We were inexcusably silent as America, the great hope of the world, became represented by images of torture and Guantanamo Bay. Republicans should have been outraged…but instead, we defended “our guy” in the white house, and earned the public’s disdain. They grew tired of the Bush administration’s vision of America.

The GOP must articulate in clear terms positive, pro-active solutions for the problems and concerns that the American people have. Access to health care and secure retirement provisions are national concerns: We cannot simply be ‘against’ universal health care or social security, we must present clear, pragmatic, appealing alternatives.

As these proposals are formulated, we must be careful not to fall prey to the idea that we must choose to side with either the “moderates” or the “conservatives” within the Party. A lukewarm, “me-too” version of the Democrats is not a solution, but neither is cliché-ridden pandering to a shrill religious right. Rather, Republicans must forge a new path, a path that is consistent with both the Republican philosophy and the American spirit, and which resonates with voters of all stripes: we must combine fiscal conservatism and responsibility with social tolerance and liberalism. The Republican Party claims to be the party of small government and maximum personal freedom. It’s about time we reclaimed that heritage in a consistent manner.

As we present our alternatives, we must eradicate the mean-spiritedness, the innuendos, the mud-slinging, and the anger from our speech. We must offer vision, hope, and a future to all. If we want young people, minorities, and immigrants in the party, then we need to really want them, not just tolerate them and accept their contributions.

At the gathering, numerous snide remarks were made about the 'liberal media,' lawyers, teachers, and liberals in general. "Immigration" - a complete non-issue to anybody in Cheshire County, New Hampshire - somehow emerged as an important 'issue' to address. At my table, one religious conservative insisted that gay marriage and abortion were leading us to Socialism (I can't even begin to explain the twisted logic here...) On a positive note, I would say the majority at my table was tired of being the reloigious rights bludgeon.

I stated openly that we need to stop blaming immigrants, young people, gays, and the 'liberal media' for our problems, and was cut off by Horn, who insisted that the party does not 'blame' those groups for anything. And yet, that appears to be more of a political 'talking position' (the media was present) than the reality, as understood by the millions of Independents - and Republicans - who abandonned the GOP in the last election.

To be sure, there was a definite contingency present who agreed enthusiastically with me. We will not go away. But it will be a long hard fight - a fight that the GOP leadership seems very, very eager to avoid at all costs. But if they do not address it, one of those costs will be their own electoral success.

More Funds for AIG...

The U. S. Treasury Department announced today that another 30 billion dollars would be headed for troubled Insurance giant AIG. This is on top of the 150 billion already sunk into this Insurance Titanic, including 26 billion in loans from the Federal Reserve Bank.

This would put the US Government ownership of AIG at 80%.

It also would convert the stock that the US Government (Read: U S Taxpayers) has in the company from Preferred to Common Stock: and that means that if the company loses money, the U. S. Taxpayer gets socked first.

Now, with all this cash, could AIG actually lose money? Well, friends, they just reported quarterly losses of 61 billion.

The appropriate action is to allow AIG to fail, and distribute their clients to well-run companies. There are plenty of healthy, responsible Insurance companies who could and would benefit from taking on AIG's clients: companies like Guardian Life, New York Life, and the American Financial Group, all of whom have refused taxpayer bailout funds because they have operated their companies responsibly and profitably.

Which are the companies that are taking taxpayer funds?

- Banks that sold and traded in irresponsible sub-prime mortgages (required by Democratic President Carter, to 'help' low-income areas, and strenuously enforced by Democratic President Bill Clinton).

- Insurance Companies that invested in subprime mortgages and irresponsible banks after Banking Deregulation (signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1999) permitted it. (See a pattern here?)

Meanwhile, healthy insurers that should be the focus of the public's purchases are put at competitive disadvantage by having the Irresponsible Government Favorites kept afloat with tax dollars. We are rewarding the inept, and hurting the wise.

Why? Why would Obama want 80% government control of an insurance Company?

Ah, lets just wait for his new Health Plan Initiative Wouldn't it be amazing if AIG suddenly became the US Government-funded Universal Health Insurer?

Hmmmm....

District of Columbia representatives: an Entirely Unconstitutional Process.

This country continues, at breakneck pace, to destroy its Constitution and eviscerate the Rule of Law. Under Bush, it was done in the name of "National Security." Under Obama, it's done in the name of Populist Mob Rule.

The House of Representatives has voted to permit the non-voting representative from Washington, DC to have full voting rights as a member of Congress. It is argued that it is unfair that the District of Columbia's 592,000 people have no voice of their own in Congress.

I do not argue that point. However, granting these citizens a Representative requires more than Congressional Mob Rule in a fit of moral outrage: it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

Article I, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution states:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second
Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of
twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who
shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

The Constitution is clear that STATES have voting representatives in Congress. Not Districts, Not cities, Not territories.

If Washington DC, with 592,000 people, why not New York City with 8.3 million people? Why not Puerto Rico, with 4 million people?

When the District of Columbia sought the right to vote in Presidential elections, everyone understood that the Constitution only permitted Electors from the States to cast ballots for President. Appropriately, the nation adopted a Constitutional Amendment (the 23rd Amendment) in 1961 to permit DC residents to vote for President.

This is no different. If the residents of DC want to be represented in Congress, there is a clear process: Amend the Constituion, don't just ride roughshod over it.

Barack Obama as Eva Peron Reincarnated...

I really wanted to like this President. But from an Economic perspective, the man is an unmitigated long-term disaster.

As I listen to his speeches, and observe his techno-proficient crowd of groupies, entertainment-style pop-star performances and class-warfare compatriots, I could not help but think of Eva Peron. And being a Broadway nut, I googled a few phrases from the musical "Evita' to get them right for this entry. And in the process, I found someone who had the exact same thoughts as I did. So, rather than reinvent what has already been said quite well, I present Jim Boulet Jr's take on Obama and Eva, from www.americanthinker.com:

"When it comes to Barack Obama, fans of "Evita" have seen this show before.

Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's popular musical, "Evita," tells the story of how Eva "Evita" Peron rose from obscurity to become the first lady of Argentina.

Remarkably, many of the lyrics of "Evita" apply equally well to Barak Obama, beginning with the Messianic adoration neither discouraged: "I'm their savior, that's what they call me," sang Evita. Or as the children's choir sang to her (just like they do for Obama):

"Please, gentle Eva, will you bless a little child? For I love you, tell Heaven I'm doing my best I'm praying for you, even though you're already blessed"

Evita was all about inspiring emotions and creating moods, not describing policy details:

"Instead of government we had a stage,
Instead of ideas, a primadona's rage
Instead of help we were given a crowd
She didn't say much, but she said it loud."

Similarly, Obama supporter David Frum said of Obama's July European tour: "Obama has risen to power by using a soothing cloud of meaningless words to conceal displeasing truths and avoid difficult choices." Evita was not ashamed of taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the needy:

"I promise you this:
We will take the riches from the oligarchs
Only for you, for all of you. And one day, you too will inherit these treasures."

Since Argentina's rich were not a limitless source of funds, Evita seized considerable sums from the middle class in order to sufficiently spread the wealth around:

"Eva's pretty hands reached out and they reached wide
Now you may feel it should have been a voluntary cause
But that's not the point my friends
When the money keeps rolling in, you don't ask how
Think of all the people guaranteed a good time now...."

"And the money kept rolling out in all directions
To the poor, to the weak, to the destitute of all complexions
Now cynics claim a little of the cash has gone astray
But that's not the point my friends
When the money keeps rolling out you don't keep books
You can tell you've done well by the happy grateful looks
Accountants only slow things down, figures get in the way
Never been a lady loved as much as Eva Peron."

ACORN will love Barack Obama for the same reason Evita was loved: he will be the man who will keep their nest well feathered.

Both Evita and Obama proved willing to use intimidation tactics in order to ensure their nation benefitted from their leadership whether a majority agreed or not:

"How annoying that they have to fight elections for their cause
The inconvenience, having to get a majority
If normal methods of persuasion fail to win them applause
There are other ways of establishing authority"

When the National Rifle Association attempted to run television ads in Ohio and Pennsylvania accusing Barack Obama of wanting to ban certain guns and put a tax on others, the Obama campaign sent out a letter threatening to challenge the FCC license of any station which dared broadcast the NRA's ads.

Evita reached high office on the basis of style, not substance. Similarly, Barak Obama's resume is remarkably short for a potential U.S. president. Yet if the polls are correct, Barak will soon join Evita as "high flying adored." But "for someone on top of the world, the view [will not be] exactly clear."

Jim Boulet, Jr. owns all three versions of "Evita."

Right on Jim....here's one more quote to add, as Che describes the results of Eva's folly:

"What's new Buenos Aires? Your nation, which a few years
ago had the second largest gold reserves in the world, is
bankrupt! A country which grew up and grew rich on
beef is rationing it! La Prensa, one of the few newspapers
which dares to oppose Peronism, has been silenced, and
so have all other reasonable voices! I'll tell you what's
new Buenos Aires!"

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who sees Obama's "Plan" for what it is....

GM, Chrysler, Homeowners: they all want MY money.

Frederic Bastiat, writing two centuries ago, said it best:

"The law has come to be an instrument of injustice....the law defends plunder and participates in it...The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it."

Today's News item #1: "General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC summoned the prospect Tuesday of their collapse unless they get $7 billion in federal aid within six weeks -- part of a dramatic plea for a total of up to $39 billion to survive the worst economic crisis in the history of Detroit's signature industry."

(This, of course, is 14 billion more than they ASSURED us all that they needed a few months ago)

Today's News item #2 (With breaking details from ABC news, who, apparently, claims an 'in' with Democratic policy makers): "...Government subsidies for lenders to modify loans to homeowners who are struggling to make payments. The government would subsidize the difference.... A program through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for homeowners to refinance their mortgages if they owe more than their homes are worth..."

So, in a nutshell:

1) *I,* (like the majority of Amertican consumers) chose NOT to buy GM or Chrysler cars, but to purchase cars that met my needs as a consumer. Because I chose better cars by better manufactureres that offered me what I needed and wanted at a price I could afford...my government will now force me, via taxation, to keep afloat poor competitors whom I specifically did NOT choose on my own to support.

2) *I* chose to purchase a tiny house that i could afford, and refinanced when appropriate, to make sure that I was a responsible homeowner. Eight of us lived in an affordable two-bedroom house. I subdivided the living room to create a third bedroom. When my teens needed more room, i moved to sleeping on an unheated porch - because it was the responsible thing to do.

However, for all those who bought houses beyond their means, who threw caution to the wind in terms of adjustable rates, who lied on their applications...and for all the banks who make money on these loans...these people will keep their houses and their banks will continue to make money...because my government will now force ME to subsidize THEM through taxation.

Yes, I'm disgusted.

Attack on Free Speech in Los Angeles...

Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College, was in the process of giving a speech in a speech class when he offered his opinion that, based on his religious beliefs, marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals. He was cut off by the instructor, who justified his actions because two students were 'upset.'

Ooh, poor babies....This is COLLEGE folks...people dont lose their right to free speech when they walk in the doors of a college! (And for those who suggest this was 'hate speech,' save your breath. There is no such thing. That speech which is MOST offensive is precisely that speech the first amendment is meant to protect.

As the the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated in its Dec. 31, 1994 paper "Hate Speech on Campus" :

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society...

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted..."

Lopez, is appropriately, suing.

Bishop Robinson and Gay Marriage in NH

This past Sunday Bishop Gene Robinson officiated at my home parish, St. James Episcopal Church in Keene, NH. It was the first time I had met the man, and he proved to be everything his supporters claimed, and more: warm, scholarly, humorous, articulate, spiritual...I am proud this man is my Bishop.

Afterwards, we had some time to chat with him. He had recently testified before the NH State Legislature concerning the issue of marriage...and, just as I had suggested in my own testimony several years ago, he asked for a seperation of the civil 'rights' from the ecclesaistical 'rites.' In other words, he asked the state to grant 'recognition' (and you can use any word you'd like for that) to any two people desiring state recognition, while the churches would issue their own blessings (or not) based on their own traditions and canons. The distinction between the civil and the ecclesiastical is precisely what I have been arguing for all along here.

We forget that two different processes are happening because they 'collapse' into one at most wedding ceremonies. The Bishop has proposed that churches within his diocese lead the way for making this clear: He has suggested that a Justice of the Peace perform the 'civil' ceremony at the back of the church for all couples (gay or straight), and then have the couple proceed to the altar area where the ecclesisastical rites are engaged.

Makes a heck of a lot of sense to me.

"Stimulus."

$13.00 tax cut per paycheck.

Spending bill cost, with interest: $17,000 per person.

YOU do the math.

Michael Phelps...what I wish he would have said...

So Michael Phelps was caught by some moron with a camera taking a hit of pot at a party, and felt it necessary to broadcast it to the world. Kellogg's acted in predictable knee-jerk, Neo-Puritan fashion and dumped him from their ads (3 Cheers for Subway, who's keeping him). And As equally expected, Phelps issued the expected apology, complete with phrases like , "regrettable,” “youthful,” "inappropriate,” and “it will never happen again."

Here's what i would have liked to have heard him say:

"Dear Muckraking Hypocrites in the Media,

Go to Hell. Yes, I smoked some pot, just like a majority of the generatiion currently writing about me did. Yes, I inhaled a substance that Presidents and Corporate Executives and Policemen and Politicians of all stripes before me have. Yes, I used a substance that is demonstrably less dangerous to anyone than liquor, which is legal in all 50 states and a multimillion dollar industry for both the private sector and the government that feeds off of its taxes.

I did not apply for the position of "role model," and did not ask to be under your microscope. I worked my ass off, and did what no other athlete before me has done, and you loved it and made it 'your own' because I was on 'your team,' even though your only contributon was to sit on your fat asses and watch the television.

Of course, you delight on creating drama, in elevating heroes to God-like stature, and then pulling them down in the excitement of scandal. It's a time-honored American tradition to provide fodder for the intellectually-challenged who thrive on gossip to titillate them while they down grease-soaked fries and make excuses for their mediocrity.

Yes, I smoked pot. Go find some other item of equal importance to fill the pages of your news magazines...like aliens abducting Oprah's secret twin or something..."

Yeah, I'd like to see someone take a swat at a public and a media that insists on crucifying its heroes, that loves the bloodlust of pulling down the great. Maybe, someday, someone will tell us to go to hell - and it will be overdue and well-deserved.

Obama's Stimulus: in the end, a disappointment that will make matters worse.

(Actual picture of a woman heating her home with a wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks. The German financial collapse that precipitated WW2)

When the new White House first let glimpses of the Stimulus Plan out to the media, I was cautiously optimistic: the cornerstone appeared to be tax cuts and spending on infrastructure. Tax cuts always help (if they are across the board and accompanied by spending cuts); investing in infrastructure is a tool that has long-term benefits and payoffs in terms of more efficient movement of goods and services throughout the economy.

My hopes have faded into nothing. Less than 5% of the bill is for highways and bridges

What has emerged is a free-spending "give-away" that will cause more harm than good. The $800-$900 billion spending pacakge will actually cost an additional 347 billion in interest alone according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The largest single chunk of these funds - $252 billion - is for "transfer payments" - $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While this may sound "good" because it helps poor people who are struggling, it is still a one-time dumping of money that is not going to create jobs, increase employment, or ramp up our GDP. Bush tried thsi twice with no effect.

You may argue that in this economy, helping those in need is a worthy end in itself: but at what cost? Obama claims that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut as a result of this Stimulus Package. But the reality is that we are not getting free money from the government: we will be getting money that the US Government is going to borrow, and then we will have to pay it back with interest. In other words, Uncle Sam is forcing us to take out a loan, and forcing us to repay it, whether we like it or not. It is not a give-away, although it will appear that way.

We are not in a Liquidity (credit) Crisis. We are in an Over-Indebtedness Crisis, which has resulted in a liquidity problems, and this will exacerbate the problem. How many times can you shore up a collapsing dock with duct tape and baling wire before the entire structure collapses?

When inflation hits - and it will - we will be in worse shape than ever. If losing 40% of your 401K is bad (which is what happened to many of us in the last year), think how bad it will be when those funds can't even cover the cost of a used car.

Spending vs. Saving: Washington's attempt to cure a Hangover with more Booze

The current economic recovery proposal before Congress is a mixed bag, and attempts to use Reagan's formula: marry Supply-Side tools (which appeals to Republicans) with Fiscal Policy Tools (appealing to Democrats) in order to forge a grand coalition to pass the legislation.

Fiscal Policy liberals have traditionally relied on spending borrowed government money like a drunken sailor. The idea is that if the government spends money on projects, it will employ people, putting money into their hands, and enabling them to purchase goods...which in turns increases factory orders, and increases employment. The problem with this, of course, is that when government borrows money, it borrows from HUGE institutions that have HUGE amounts of dollars to lend: Credit Suisse, Lloyds of London, China, the House of Saud, and other wealty entities. As American citizens pay the interest on these borrowed funds (now amounting to 20 to 25 cents per tax dollar paid), we transfer our wealth from the American citizens to these huge institutions.

Supply Siders have traditionally felt that the way to stimulate the economy is to help businesses directly, the notion being that these businesses can then afford to hire people, pay them, and kick-start the economy from the business side.

Thus, investing in infrastructure improvements appeals to both sides: Fiscal Dems love spending money on projects, and Supply Side Reps like making the transportation of goods and services less expensive for business. Hence, Obama's initiative in investing in Infrastructure.

Meanwhile, both sides are negotiating tax cuts, tax rebates, and money giveaways for consumers and small businesses.

Now...I am 100% in favor of tax cuts, too. But the problem here is that Washington is favoring tax cuts for all the wrong reasons.

Current thought is that if "the people" have more of their own money, they will spend it freely, thus stimulating the economy. But this is like attempting to cure a hangover by encouraging the drunk to drink more alcohol: yes, it may deaden the pain, but it doesnt cure the problem, and in fact, only makes it worse.

For years, "savings" has been a dirty word to Fiscal Keynesians. In fact, in economic jargon, they call savings "leakage," because it represents buying power that 'leaks' from the economy.

Let me suggest that one of the root causes of our current problems is the attitude that consumers must buy more, more, more and not save.

Consumers, with the encouragement of Washington politicians and the Federal Reserve, have purchased homes and cars on credit, with reckless disregard to their ability to repay. During the recent credit crunch, a spokesman for Detroit actually cried, "People can't get loans to finance cars!"

And just when did the ability to get a loan become an inalienable right?!

People have bought beyond their means, used credit unwisely, and bought into the 'buy-buy-buy' notion. The average American now spends more than they earn each year.

Yes, we are in a recession. Yes, it is deep, and will get deeper still. Yes, it's going to hurt. But it's not unprecedented: we have had 26 recessions in the last 150years. It is a naural downturn in the business cycle. Rather than insisting that Americans continue to drink at the well of non-stop consumption, it is time for us to bear the hangover and come out stronger.

It is time to begin saving again for our futures.
Time to increase pre-tax 401 K contribution limits.
Time to make Pre-Tax Medical Savings Accounts available to ALL Americans, not just the self-employed and government workers;
Time to value savings and individual nest-eggs over constantly spending and then asking the government for help when the funds run out.

"Bad Bank?" Bad Idea.

SCENARIO 1: I tell my son that if he washes the car, he can use it on the weekend. Will he be more or less likely to wash the car?

SCENARIO 2: I tell my son that he can NOT use the car unless he washes it first. He never washes it because he gets wrapped up in video games. So, I wash it for him, and then hand him the keys and tell him he can use it since it's clean. What lesson is learned there?

People respond to incentives, and people generally prefer to pass burdens on to others if they can get away with it. Why are these simple economic lessons so difficult for our thick-skulled politicians to understand?

On Wednesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner suggested creating a so-called "bad bank" which would buy nonperforming loans. This bank would buy the worst loans that banks made, infusing cash into those banks (thus rewarding the financially wicked) and taking ownership of non- and under-performing real estate loans. Most estimates are certain that this will be a net cost to the taxpayers, with some estimates to the tune of $3 trillion to $4 trillion.

So, if I get this right, Banks made insane loans to non-credit-worthy people, lied about asssessed valuations, and engaged infraud; and then, sold them to other reckless banks in a grand game of hot potato. Speculators in the financial industry played the game, and many got caught with an awful lot of bad loans.

Geithner's proposed response? Let taxpayers absorb that loss, and give the banks a 'free ride.'

How is this different than Scenario 2 above?

This proposal permits banks and financial institutions to walk away from their own misdeeds, and pass the full burden on to innocent taxpayers. Instead, we should consider the OPPOSITE approach: Require banks to hold the loans that they make.

Suddenly, it will become very apparent who the prudent investors and lenders are, and who is out to play Roulette with taxpayer money. If Banks are forced to bear the burden - and enjoy the success - of their own practices, it will be a long time before we see a repeat of the current debacle.

San Francisco Wrong to Tax Roman Catholic Church

In San Francisco, Tax Assessor Phil Ting has decided that the Roman Catholic Church owes over 15 Million dollars in taxes because the Archdiocese was restructured and consolidated a number of properties seven months ago. Each of the properties was technically incorporated seperately, as would be expected when a Church operates schools, family centers, day cares, hospitals, monestaries, church buildings, etc. Since, claims Ting, this consolidation involved the transfer of "separate legal entities," a real estate transfer tax applies.
Nonsense.

There are those, of course, who are cheering: anyone who has an axe to grind with the Roman Catholic Church is applauding the fact that San Francisco is going to 'take the churches money:' many gay activists mad at the Church's support of Proposition 8, those who have left the RC Church because the Church did not bend their theology to their own ideas, those who dislike "organized" religion, those with an imaginary view of history and RC atrocities somewhere in the past, those burned by the clergy sex abuse scandals. But disliking an institution is not an appopriate basis for deciding to use the coercive force of government to confiscate its assets via taxation.

Ironically, this flies in the face of a recent court decison in the same state.

On January 5, the California Supreme Court ruled that breakaway Episcopal parishes do not have the right to keep church property if they secede from the national denomination; they held, quite strongly, that all the various properties of the Episcopal Church belong to the national Episcopal Church, not the local congregation.

This was an appropriate ruling, as the Episcopal Church - like the Methodist, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches - is, in fact, "Episcopal" in government, meaning that the local congregation is really an administrative unit of the National Church. If a local congregation secedes, they can not take the church building or property with them. (This is the opposite of "baptist" and "Bible" Churches, which hold that the ultimate authority resides in local congregations.)

So here is the incredible - and disingenuous - contradiction:

On the one hand, the California Court has stated that all Church Property belongs to the Larger Church when that Church has an episcopal governing structure.

On the other hand, the City of San Francisco (or at least Assessor Ting) has stated that all of the units under the administration of an episcopal-governed Church are independent, so any 'consolidation' is a transfer of real estate from one entity to another, and, therefore, taxable.

These positions are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other, and the California Supreme Court has spoken.

As usual, Liberals are being inconsistent: they are cheering the decision in the Episcopal Church case, because it helps liberals within the Episcopal Church structure. But they are also cheering the San Francisco action, because it gets the 'big bad ctaholic church' (Isn't that the church that operates more hospitals, orphanages, and aid services than any other in the world? Oh, yeah...)

In other words, the sides being chosen in the battles are based on who people want to win, rather than what is good law.

The Episcopal Church case is correct, and good solid law with much precedent behind it. The San Francisco action is a raw abuse of government power.

Perhaps thats why non-profit organizations - such as churches - are not normally taxed in the first place: the power to tax is the power to destroy, and once government has 'authority,' it uses it UNEQUALLY to punish those it dislikes and favor those who are its friends.

There are those who support taxing the Roman Catholic Church because of its supposed 'political involvement' in conservative ballot issues. I wonder if these same persons would support revoking non-profit tax status for all of the churches that ran the civil rights marches in the 1960s....or revoking the tax status of HIV Service agencies who reguarly lobby for an increase in federal funding?

Best to keep the arms of government taxation far away, and not let them near non-profits of *any* kind.